Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 100. (Read 636455 times)

Yep.

...comments...priceless...

9 in 10 scientists think climate change is real | 700 Non-climate scientists at Big Ten universities were surveyed 92% of scientists believe humans are to blame for global warming 94% of scientists "strongly agree" or "moderately agree" that climate science is credible


By the numbers

700

Non-climate scientists at Big Ten universities were surveyed

92%

of scientists believe humans are to blame for global warming

94%

of scientists "strongly agree" or "moderately agree" that climate science is credible


http://www.jconline.com/story/news/college/2015/09/28/9-10-scientists-think-climate-change-real/72969934/

All Those Climate Change Pledges Are A Farce, New York Times Says


After decades spent playing up the dangers of a warming planet, the New York Times admits that even if every country lived up to their current carbon reduction pledges, it won't make any difference.

Pointing to a "new analysis,' the Times notes that the planet would still heat up by 6 degrees Fahrenheit, which is too high to prevent global catastrophes from raining down.

The analysis comes from Climate Interactive, which is the source of carbon calculations used by the U.S. and other governments. It concluded the current pledges — made in advance of the big Paris conference on climate change — would reduce the expected global warming to 6.3 degrees, from 8.1 degrees that would occur without those pledges.

Keep in mind that climate scientists say that any warming above 3.6 degrees will be really, really bad. (Some even say this threshold is too high.)

So what's the point? Why should countries undertake a hugely expensive effort to reduce carbon emissions, when the climate scientists themselves are saying it won't do any good? Because they want to feel better about themselves? Get some good headlines?

Some might argue that taking this first step could lead to many more, which could produce still more CO2 reductions down the road.

But that, too, ignores an inconvenient fact that President Obama, Al Gore and everyone else proselytizing against fossil fuels won't admit. If climate scientists are right, keeping the global temperature increase under 3.6 degrees will require the entire planet to go completely carbon free in about 60 years, something nobody is proposing to do, or say what it would entail.

And after that, we'd need to be removing massive amounts of carbon from the atmosphere each year, something nobody has a clue how to accomplish.

Of course, it's also possible that the climate scientists are wrong, both about future warming and about the harm it will cause, and we don't need to worry about CO2 at all.

Either way, all those pledges to cut carbon emissions would be pointless.

Feel-good policies that do nothing but massively raise costs and kill jobs aren't something to be celebrated. Nor should the leaders who propose them.


http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/092815-773048-climate-change-pledges-made-so-far-wont-stop-global-warming.htm

You've created a never ending thread which sucks everything in, just like a b...

US Temperature data -

FAKE

Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered



We have written many times about the fact that the temperature data used in the alarmists’ global warming models are not original data as measured by thermometers. Rather, they are “adjusted” numbers, consistently changed to make the past look cooler and the present warmer, so that more billions of dollars will flow from the world’s governments to the climate alarmists who serve government’s cause. This is, in my opinion, the greatest scandal in the history of science.

This article at Watts Up With That? adds incrementally to that picture. John Goetz analyzes the U.S. temperature data that finds its way into “official” tabulations. This is particularly important because, while the U.S. represents only 6.6% of the total land area of Earth, we account for close to half of the data relied on by the Global Historical Climatology Network. This is a big topic, and you should study the Goetz article in its entirety if you have time. I am still digesting it.

But a few highlights are obvious. First, Goetz finds that approximately 92% (or even more, depending on how you calculate it) of US surface temperature data consists of estimated or altered values. Very little raw data finds its way into the warmists’ climate models–which, of course, is the way they want it. Second, the adjustments that are made to the U.S. data consistently skew the numbers as we have described many times before–they try to make the present look warmer, compared with the past.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/09/almost-all-us-temperature-data-used-in-global-warming-models-is-estimated-or-altered.php

Sushimaggedon... 

Thousands of fish dead? How can they report so casually, don´t they realize that many of those poor fishes were baby fishes with a whole life ahead of them and suddenly torn away from it all. Rest in peace.

Another -FAKE to add on your list...

Actually there are quite a few lakes that lose all their water, and then later fill back up.

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/community/clovis-news/cn-sports
/article19513959.html

So I guess this news story is a FAKE.

Somehow al gore would still blame an alien invasion on Global Warming...

THEY are coming from deep in the earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYGWG2_PB_Q

And the Carbon taxes won't save you.

Sub volcanic activity? Up coming BIG ONE? The whole plateau inflated upward, pushing the water away from the lake?

Anyway... Carbon taxes will bring the water back... Sure of it.

California Lake Mysteriously Runs Dry Overnight, Thousands Of Fish Dead

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-25/california-lake-mysteriously-runs-dry-overnight-thousands-fish-dead

Aw.....those poor little cute babies....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOSsIIxQ_dE

Yaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwn.

Climate change could kill your pet, warns the RSPCA

Climate change could kill pets, according to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), as warmer temperatures cause an increase in exotic diseases among cats and dogs.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/5429593/Climate-change-could-kill-your-pet-warns-the-RSPCA.html

Yeah, yeah and yeah. Here, have a little emotional porn ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Children will bear brunt of climate change impact, new study says

Most comprehensive climate change review to date warns of risks to children, with Unicef arguing that children have been largely left out of the debate so far

Rajesh Kumar Singh/AP
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
Monday 23 September 2013 07.00 BST Last modified on Thursday 22 May 2014 05.50 BST

Children will bear the brunt of the impact of climate change because of their increased risk of health problems, malnutrition and migration, according to a new study published on Monday. And food prices are likely to soar as a result of warming, undoing the progress made in combating world hunger.

The findings are published as scientists began meeting in Stockholm to produce the most comprehensive assessment yet of our knowledge of climate change. Over the next five days, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, bringing together the world's leading experts, will thrash out the final details of a message to the world's governments.

They are expected to warn that climate change is almost certainly caused by human actions, and that it will lead to a global temperature rise likely to top 2C, with related effects including the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap and glaciers, a rise in sea level by nearly 1 metre by the end of this century and more extreme rainfall in parts of the globe.

Unicef argues that, although children are more vulnerable to the effects of global warming, they have been largely left out of the debate. "We are hurtling towards a future where the gains being made for the world's children are threatened and their health, wellbeing, livelihoods and survival are compromised … despite being the least responsible for the causes," said David Bull, Unicef's UK executive director. "We need to listen to them."

Children born last year will come of age in 2030, by which time the effects of climate change in the form of an increase in droughts, floods and storms are likely to be more in evidence. In the 10 most vulnerable countries, including Bangladesh, India and the Philippines, there are 620 million children under 18.

Unicef estimates that 25 million more children will suffer malnourishment because of climate change, with a further 100 million suffering food insecurity, where they and their families are on the verge of running out. Children among the 150-200 million people estimated to have to flee their homes because of climate change will suffer more than adults because of their relative lack of resources and higher vulnerability to disease. In heatwaves, likely to grow more intense and frequent under climate change, babies and small children are more likely to die or suffer heatstroke because they find it difficult to regulate their body heat.

Separately, a report by Oxfam warned that global warming would cause rapid rises in food prices, causing severe consequences in poor countries. In pointed contrast to climate sceptics, who have seized on some of the areas of uncertainty in the IPCC assessment to claim that global warming is a far-off and minor problem, Oxfam listed recent examples of extreme weather that have caused food shortages and raised prices, quoting scientific estimates that these are likely to increase in number as warming continues. "Today one person in eight goes to bed hungry. Analysis suggests that the number of people at risk of hunger is projected to increase by 10-20% by 2050 as a result of climate change," the study found.

The authors cited the 2012 drought in Russia, which cut the grain harvest by a quarter, resulting in grain and bread prices rocketing and many farmers falling into serious debt and hardship. The same year, the worst drought in 50 years in the mid-west of the US cut maize yields by a quarter, leading to a 40% rise in prices. Two years before, the devastating Pakistan floods destroyed 570,000 hectares of crops, and 80% of food stored was lost in some areas.

Oxfam also cites a study that suggested the 2011 drought in East Africa and famine in Somalia were made more likely by climate change. One of the problems with estimating the future effects of warming is that natural events such as storms, floods and droughts happen anyway and it is hard to blame particular occurrences on global warming. On this, the panel is expected to say on Friday that extreme weather effects are more likely because of climate change but will stop well short of attributing specific events solely to climate change.

Tim Gore from Oxfam said: "We want a world in which everyone enjoys the right to affordable and nutritious food, and we cannot allow climate change to throw us off course. Leaders listening to the latest findings from climate scientists this week must remember that a hot world is a hungry world. They must take urgent action to slash emissions and direct more resources to building a sustainable food system."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/23/children-bear-brunt-climate-change-new-study

It's time to talk about The Children and puppy dogs drowning.  Unless the Deniers have grabbed them first and ate them.